melissa: i'm melissa francis. here's what's "money"

tonight. is wind energy really worth it? one town spent millions putting up turbines to go green but some locals are seeing red. they say they're getting sick. and now residents could be looking at a tax increase just to pay it take them down. do you believe that? you've to hear the story. is this the future of wind power in america. two days to the sequester deadline but we have the "money" fix for the steep cuts. there are three cuts to the military that could stop the math and keep america safe. we have the details. we solve problems here. parents filed suit against apple claiming it is too easy for kids to rack up massive charges for free games. now apple will pay out a truckload of cash to settle. but will it actually child proof apple devices? hmmm. even when they say it's not, it is always about money.

melissa: so we are starting tonight with a small town of massachusetts that is making big waves over wind energy. after years of locals complaining the wind turbines are making them sick, the town may now take them down at a cost to taxpayers. believe it or not, these residents may be willing to pick up the multimillion-dollar tab. fox news's molly line is in falmouth, massachusetts, with all the details. molly? >> melissa, these two turbines were put up by the town of falmouth in an effort to create green energy and savings of the situation create ad sense of division within the community. some neighbors complained about noise and illness. >> it gets to be jet engine loud. >> reporter: neil anderson and his wife a quarter mile from the turbines. they say the impact on their health is devastating. headaches, dizziness, sleep

deprivation. >> every time the blade is downward motion it gives up a tremendous force of energy as a pulse, boom, boom. >> reporter: the first turbine went up in 2010. by the time both were in place on the industrial side the town's water treatment facility the price was ten million. the town officials say taking them down will cost submitted five to 15 million including energy savings. that is what the firms decided to do. >> we think it is the right thing to do, absolutely. >> reporter: meantime the turbines are run or curtailment only operated during the day as the select men respond to the concerns of neighbors which means they're operating at a loss. it has been a biter three-year battle in the seaside town where the officials say the project was properly vetted research and put to a vote several times. >> if we end up take the turbines down it will be a shame. it will be an embarassment for the town of falmouth.

>> reporter: ultimately this will be an issue that the people will decide. this goes to a town meeting vote in april and could possibly be on the ballot as of may. so this all goes back to what the people of falmouth ultimately decide to do. melissa? melissa: molly, wow, thanks so much. we have reported on wind energy of course on the show here a number of times. a few quick snaps on the industry. wind accounts for less than 3% of the nation's electricity generation and there are about 45,000 wind turbines in the u.s. right now. but in all the studies that we have covered, all the stories we have covered we haven't come across the story where the outcome could mean town locals may end up with a tax increase in order to cover up to 15 million of costs of removing the wind turbines. this is shocking. they paid to 10 to $15 million in order to install the things to put them up with the idea they would be saving money over time as they ranch as you heard because of the curtailment right now they're operating

at a loss. if they get rid of the turbines as the town wants, they will get taxed another $15 million in order to pay for that. joining us for a first-hand account, okay. we're going back to that story in just a moment. let's move onto the sequester cuts for a moment here and how to fix them. president obama was in virginia today, warning of the dire consequences of defense cuts and what they will have on our military and our economy. you heard about all this, in 2012 of course we spent $65 billion on the military. today we're helping to solve that problem here on "money". we have a fix. we don't just complain. we fix things. we'll rein in spending without affecting u.s. security. chris harmer is the senior naval analyst at the institute for study of war. chris, i'm very excited because you're here to solve the problem. everybody is out there trying to scare people or trying to do nothing. i want to fix it. give me the first step. where do you see places we could cut? >> there is a couple of easy fixes, melissa, if we had,

if i had unilateral control over the budget i could fix this problem immediately. unfortunately congress has set up the budget in a very complex matter in order to benefit itself. most of the problems we have in terms of the pentagon budget are not a problem of mismanagement at the pentagon or at the department of defense. it is a problem of misallocation of resources from the front end. let me give you one example of that. soviets during the cold war had a saying better is the enemy of good enough. they would look at the military equipment, if what they had was good enough to do the job they would not overpay for something better. here in the states we have serious problem overpaying for equipment that is more than adequate for the job that is required. a perfect example of that is the f-35. you i am a retired naval aviator. i spent 20 years fly for the united states navy, 3500 flight hours. if the navy would capable or run its own purchase program the navy wouldn't go anywhere near the f-35

because it cost 2 1/2 times as much f-18 for only marginal increase in capability. melissa: let me start you there. i'm all in favor of cutting spending. >> gotcha. melissa: one. my favorite things in the world except when we're talking about handbags. setting that aside, if you don't do incremental improvements in this type of technology, don't you fall behind? you say this one is only a little bit better, but three little bit betters you're heck of a lot better. >> the difference, revolutionary approaches in technology or revolutionary advances in technology cost a tremendous amount of money. incremental advances do cot cost as much at all. example, f-18 hornet was the got operational capability 30 years ago. the f-18s built today, there is no comparison between that and what we built 30 years ago because we invested over 30 years incremental and safe approaches to technology advancement. the f-35 was a revolutionary advance in technology at i'm

not saying it is not a good plane, it is a good plane but far more plane than we need. you wouldn't buy a rolls-royce to go grocery shopping unless you have obscene amount of money. this is what we're doing, buying rolls-royces. melissa: we have pretty big number. what would this save? >> there is two different ways to look at it, flyaway cost the cost of buying aircraft today. fifth of f-35 today will cost 105 million as fly away cost. f-18 will cost 48 million to the fly away cost. that hides the true program cost. melissa: i don't mean to hurry you along. we have only a minute left. 400 billion is great savings there. >> yeah. melissa: total cost, of since 2001. so that is what we might save there. >> yeah. melissa: you alk about cutting out the redundancy in the joint chiefs of staff. i love that idea. how much money would that

possibly save? >> it would save tens of billions of dollars not per year. would save 2 do $4 billion a year for the foreseeable future. what we have got secretary of defense and joint chiefs of staff have staffs set up to do exactly the same thing. you have competing staffs working on exact same projects in the pentagon. it is complete waste of manpower. melissa: that sounds about right. you talk about cutting down overseas military bases in countries where we're shouldering all of the financial burden. we spend loot on japan and south korea and you think maybe we don't need that? >> not so much that we don't need a overseas military presence but we need to be rational approach to pay their fair share. it would cost them less to subsidize our military presence. we need allies to carry more of the cost because we're spending our money defending their freedoms. melissa: chris, i thank you. i like to have solutions on

the show. we're not just complaining out here. we have got ideas. thanks for coming on. >> thanks. have a good evening. >> let's get back to the story we had before. you know how i love wind energy. we had a technical glitch. a massachusetts town is considering removing wind turbines at a cost to residents. with a first-hand account, heather harper, assistant town manager of falmouth, massachusetts. first of all, tell me how is opinion trending in your town right now? how many people are complaining of healths hazards like the couple we saw in the story? >> there are several neighbors, particularly neighbors abutting wind 1 and wind 2 along the adjacent property to falmouth wind turbines. the town of falmouth owns two wind turbines, two of three located at our wastewater treatment facility and our industrial zone. melissa: and how much energy have they actually produced? because, you know, during molly's story i heard the

lost energy savings. i got to wonder if it costs $15 million to put these two things up and i stood out and wind turbines when they're static and not turning at all, how much wind energy savings is actually going on as a result of these turbines? >> well, if the turbines are running at full capacity they would be supporting about 60% of our municipal energy needs, which includes our wastewater, water, zoo school, municipal, library recreation, all the demand of our local government would be supplied, 60%. that demand would be supplied by wind turbines. melissa: all the time? you can, hang on. you can count on them to be working all the time? hard for me to believe around the clock they're supporting 60% of the your energy needs? >> it is over the course, based on annual production, over the course of a year, you can estimate they would support about 60% of the municipal demand. melissa: okay. so how much of is that a savings to you if you factor

in what it costs to get them there and put them up and the cost of that compared to what would your other energy source be, natural gas? or what do you use on your grid? >> well, we are supplied with energy through m-star which is the local energy supplier. the wind turbines provide alternative, renewable alternative to that conventional supply. and the town of falmouth made active choices going back to the early part of this decade to install wind generators to offset demand from our highest energy consumer which is our wastewater treatment facility. melissa: okay. so heather, how would you feel bit if you went ahead and everyone voted to take them down and you had to spend ten or $15 million to get them down and tax the town for it? someone in the story said it is embarrassing. is it embarrassing? >> well, the project is a community project that was before our town with more than six town meeting votes. it is now placed before the

town to make a decision to determine whether it makes sense for our community following a very long and robust community process to develop consensus around what the right choices may be for our community. and if the town determines that that's the right choice for our community, it will be making the choice to tax itself. melissa: okay. so are people pretty mad they paid to put the things up and now they will pay to put take them down? >> that is really good question. there is a variety of viewpoints and that they're really are mixed and i don't think you could give a trend on that. there are those that believe that it is in the best interest of the community, bring community harl money back to our town, the town of falmouth that we should take them down. and, eliminate the wind turbines. there are others that believe that renewable energy and wind energy is the future of this town and our nation and believe that it is worth continued investment in that project. it really is going to be a decision that will be before our town meeting as well as on the ballot in may.

melissa: heather, thank you so much for coming out here to face the music. i really feel for you out here. i think probably the answer is there will be mad people on every side no matter how it comes out. thanks for coming on. we appreciate it. >> you're welcome. melissa: now turn to today's market moment. stocks swung back after the worst day of the year. in testimony before congress earlier today, ben bernanke promised the fed would continue stimulus measures to help the economy. strong economic data also helped fuel the comeback. february consumer sentiment rallied after a sharp drop in january. u.s. home prices and new home sales hit their highest level in years. next on "money", sequester tensions hit a boiling point between president obama and gop leaders. a last-ditch solution. it is starting to look out of reach, isn't it? the economy may be strong enough to withstand the bro. we'll explain that. yahoo! cuts the cord on telecommuting. people are up in arms. should more ceos follow

merry is a meyers lead? we'll debate. more "money" ahead. ♪ . ♪ [ male announcer ] how could switchgrass in argentina, change engineering in dubai, aluminum production in south africa, and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. you are gonna need a wingman. and with my cash back, you are money. forget him. my airline miles will take your game worldwide. what i'm really looking for is -- i got two words for you -- re-wards. ♪

there's got to be better cards than this. [ male announcer ] there's a better way with creditcards.com. compare hundreds of cards from all the major banks to find the one that's right for you. it's simple. search, compare, and apply at creditcards.com. first round's on me. you know it can be hard to lbreathe, and how that feels.e, at creditcards.com. copd includes chronic onchitis and emphysema. by keeping my airways spiriva helps control my copd symptoms open for 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine.

other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd spiriva helps me breathe better. (blowing sou) ask your doctor about spiriva.

>> we have moved the bill in

the house twice. we should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off their ass and begins to do something. melissa: what was that? oh, my goodness. some choice words from house speaker john boehner. he is echoing the frustration of lawmakers hoping for a last minute agreement to avoid friday's deep cuts. the president shut down the republican as offer to give the white house more flexibility to make the cuts. now we see the president taking his message to the masses. he is back on the road. i don't know. i feel like he should make calls to congress for a grand deal. what do i know? i'm just a tv news anchor. today's "money" power panel is here with the lowdown what we're going to see and feel. you might want to sit down for this one, i don't know. nair man nariman behravesh with ihs. chief economist. and christian dorsey from the economic policy institute. i feel like we'll solve the problem, guys. >> we are. melissa: gretchen, i will go

to you right there. it is kind of a genius strategy, maybe for once on the part of the gop to say listen, we'll give you more flexibility when what you can cut because the president is out there talking about the little children who aren't going to get measles shots. you know what? you can give them the measel shots but have to find it somewhere else. it is a good idea, right or no? >> it is a great idea. i think speaker boehner was saying what every american is thinking when they hear every single week that we're about to hit another fiscal crisis. i think he was just telling everyone, he was saying what everyone is already thinking. what it comes to what they were proposing for the white house, they were going to give them the flexibility. they have the flexibility to make the choices. only 30 cents on the dollar. you can choose whatever three cents you want to cut. what the white house is saying, oh, no, no. we want to continue to play victim. we want to show how these cuts will hurt and they will hurt bad. instead of actually picking some of the waste and

getting rid of some of the waste. melissa: christian what about that? they could choose defense. if the white house wanted they could choose whatever they want or little bit from everywhere? they could safeguard, to be fair, they could safe far things that are real i important that scare people. >> that's right. preserve vaccines for kids but you, you take away housing support for the homeless. melissa: you don't have. you don't have to. that is the whole point. those are not the choice. >> melissa, at some point does not become part of the choice. >> not three cents on the dollar it. >> is not three cents on the dollar. they were not opening up higher federal budget spending. still within the limited confines what sequestration was all about, that was the problem with it. it was a ridiculously false choice of cutting things that are not necessarily worthy of being cut. that is the problem. melissa: you know, nariman, christian brings up a great point. one of the things that is listed that is on the side that can't be part of the sequestration cuts is president obama's salary and his paycheck. that is it one of the things

that has been set aside as being safe. he is right, not everything is open. maybe we should open everything like the president's paycheck. >> well, i think that is a bit of distraction, frankly, melissa. i would put it a little differently. i think the damage, even if we go off, if we go into the sequester and stay there whole year, the cuts 85 billion for the whole year, the good news is the economy is strong enough that we can absorb this. melissa: you think? >> it is not going to kill the economy. melissa: absolutely. melissa: what are the signs that make you think we can afford this and deal with it? >> mentioned a couple of themselves. housing is improving. prices are up. sales up. confidence up. despite all this stuff about, you know, the cliff and the sequester. so, the underlying dynamics in the economy is strong. we need to cut the deficit. we all agree on that. we've got to do it at some point. we keep postponing the problem. at some point we've got to take a biter pill. now is probably good as time

as any. melissa: i want you to be right about this. what worries why did gdp contract in the fourth quarter? if the economy is really strong enough to sustain this, why did it contract? >> i you know this, melissa. it was a fluke. it will get revise you had on thursday from minus .1 to plus .5. we're headed to 2% growth in the first quarter of this year. underlying growth in the u.s. is 2%. even if we have the full sequester, it will go to 1 1/2%. half a percent% on gdp. >> i will let you go next, christian. do you think we're strong enough to absorb the cut? >> short term we may feel a little bit of ramification, three cents on dollar, probably not. if you have a government spending less and letting private sector spend more you will have an economy that is thriving. i think the last gdp showed we're living on borrowed time and borrowed money. longer we put off this problem the greater it is going to hurt our economy. melissa: christian, you disagree with that? >> i hope you heard nariman at the end of his remarks.

it will still cut growth by half of a percentage point. kneeslessly self-inflicted wound. even though it will not choke us back into recession it is still unnecessary blow to the economy. >> we can't continue to spend money we don't have. >> here's the thing, the sequester doesn't actually reduce the deficit. incumbent reductions in economic growth mean you're not doing anything to improve your deficit. just ridiculous spending cuts that make no sense. if you want to reduce the deficit --. melissa: you've got to attack entightments. you're absolutely right, christian. you made a salient point. all of this we're sweating oversee questionster cuts and really, they do nothing. it is barely any cuts you're right about that we've got to go. you're a great panel. hope you come back together. thanks so much for coming on. time for today's fuel gauge report. gas prices climbed overnight following a two-day decline. aaa says the average price for a gallon rose one penny to 3.78. gas prices are up nearly 50 cents a gallon.

so it is beginning of the year, that's horrible. may be some relief ahead. i don't know. rbob gasoline futures posted the biggest fall since november 7. u.s. refinery operations are expected to increase in the coming weeks, raising the outlook for higher gasoline supplies. that outlook also bit into oil futures. they slid to the lowest level in a year, settling at 92.63 a barrel. all right. coming up on "money", the uproar spreads over yahoo!'s ban on working from home. can i work from home? i feel like that wouldn't work. does it destroy productivity or will it prove a genius move for yahoo!? we'll debate it. plus, if you want to feel better about the u.s. democratic process, take a look at italy. its election debacle threatens to unleash the e.u. debt crisis once again. should the u.s. brace for impact? we'll explain it. do you ever have too much money? ♪

have given way to sleeping. tossing and turning where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep. d lunesta®(eszopiclone) can help you get there. like it has for so many people before. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving, or engaging in other activities while asleep, without remembering it the next day, have been reported. lunesta should not be taken together with alcohol. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergoccur rarely and may tongue obe fatal.swelling side effec may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness, and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then find out how to get lunesta for as low as fifteen dollars at lunesta.com. there's a la of restful sleep.

we can help you go there on the wings of lunesta.

♪ . melissa: this is a big topic this week whether companies should allow employees to work from home. obviously yahoo!'s marisa meyer started the dialogue with her bombshell announcement starting in june all employees will be expected to show up at the office or else find work somewhere else. this is controversial move generating heat what is best for the company's bottom line. is working from home progress or is it unproductive? joining me now with both side, are hadley heath from the independent women's forum and republican strategist know well knicks pour. -- noell nikpour. welcome to the show. this is interesting test case for the rest of the economy. this is standing up saying listen, this is okay, if you're not here, i don't know what you're doing. i don't know you're not doing. you're not talking to people in the hallways. there are actual meetings

and something beneficial from actually physically being here. she is saying if you're not here you don't have a job any longer. hadley, what do you think about that. >> i'm not going to pretend i know more what is better for who than their ceo, marisa mayor. it is her choice to suggest that work place policy but i would think it is a mistake working from home makes workers less productive that is not true. a study from the university of texas says working from home boosts productivity. people who work at home spend five it seven more hours each week working. melissa: this become as women's issue, whether we want it to or not. we would be so mad if a guy is out there saying this is william's issues we would cut him off at the knees. i'm a woman and so i'll say it. people work from home don't have the to pay for child care, makes more manageable. i have two little kids. i can't get any work done at home. if they know i'm there, they

come in. is there a danger this become as you're against woman even though you are a woman because you're telling everybody to come into work? >> coming from a women's perspective you're not against women usually because i am a woman. as a matter of fact i'm just like you. i have got a business that i run and i run it out of my house. i have to be honest, sometimes the doorbell rings i take a break. she is right with what she is doing. you can tell she is on the right track what she is doing. comradery, there are ideas for people in the workplace. look yahoo!'s stock went up 50%. they hired her. she is shrewd. she knows what she is doing. she knew she would catch flock. you can not call in a dot-com industry and tell people, which a lot of them work from home and can't tell them to come into the office without catching flak. she knew this would be a media blitz. melissa: hadley, but is this part of sort of a developing almost backlash movement where she's being harsh, you know, saying, if you want a

paycheck you need it show up in the office. at the same time you have sheryl sandberg from facebook out on the road. she is promoting her book, lean in, the basic thesis if you haven't gotten ahead in the woman it is because you are not working hard enough. that is basically the premise of her book. this is the same sort of no-nonsense attitude that marisa meyer is putting out there as well. is this part of new, almost, being tough with people, tough love as opposed to being soft? >> well it is interesting, there is about 20 to 0 million people in the united states who take advantage of some kind of work from home option even just once a week. that number has been boosted by more than 11% since 2008. that is a fad that certainly part of the evolution of the workplace. melissa: is it going away? >> i don't think it is going away. i think that is the future. we'll see first competing for the best and most talented workers. most workers, men and women, parents and nonparents alook like to have good work life balance. this is place where i'm

afraid yahoo! may be limiting themselves ultimately. melissa: hadley, what do we lose by forcing people coming into the office? what do we lose? the arguments you end up with mediocre workers, there are a lot of great people that would only work from home? it device the environment because people are driving more. what do you lose having people come into the office? i will ask noel to come into the office. >> there are more overhead costs, more days per week and come out mooing cost,. you mentioned those. ultimately the flexibility have to be around their families, to spend more time jug link, going to the store or doing your laundry at time of day more convenient for you versus being on e-mail, iphone constantly. when you work from home you may not be in the office ever but that also means you're never really off the clock. there is a 24 hour work cycle that comes along with having that flexibility. melissa: i'm not sure i'm ever off the clock. the way we are, you have your blackberry. you have your computer with you. you have your ipad.

you have become a culture where your boss expects you to respond basically all the time. >> melissa, women wear so many different hats. we're never off the clock. married, children, whatever you have. you wear so many hats as a woman where a man does not. i agree with the yahoo! ceo the fact it does increase productivity because when i'm working for an can date. i raise money from candidates. when i work at home, i do my own pace. when i have to go to the senator's office so to speak i'm really forced to participate in other areas where i may not have done that at home. so i do think, i do see what she is trying to do. you know what? they hired her to do it. let her do it. if it doesn't work they can always send them home. melissa: that's right. shareholders seem to like it. great discussion. thanks for coming on. >> thank you. melissa: here is our "money" question of the day, working from home is it progress or is it unproductive? so far your responses have been mixed. we want to hear from more of you. like us on facebook.co facebook.com/melissafrancisfox

or follow me on twitter @melissaafrancis. a lot of you said the same thing, which is, i'm just not that productive when i'm home because there are so many distractions. maybe it is just me. next on monn -- "money", if is elections just a boxing match, in italy it is a mud wrestling match. why the u.s. may want to batten down the hatches. my favorite professor is coming up. you bought $300 worth of apps, is it your fault? a lawsuit by parents against apple claims no. apple is planning a $100 million payout. we have all the details. do you want your money back? stay on this channel. "piles of money" for you coming up. ♪ .

♪ . melissa: so, you likely heard italy's general election leaving the nation in a state of political gridlock. shocker. a majority of voters endorsed party that's have promised to tone down or even reverse the financial sacrifices the government has promised but will this send us back into a euro crisis? joining me, my favorite professor from the university of chicago. welcome pack to the show. it has been way too long. it shouldn't take insanity in italy for us to get back

together. i'm so happy to see you. >> well you know --. melissa: go ahead. >> if insanity in italy brought us together, we would be on every day. we would be on every day. melissa: you're too good. you're too good. what do you make of everything that happened? >> well it's a very strange election. you called it must wrestling. that sounds right, the two top parties were less than half a percent apart. the winner was on the center left. he ran aggressive left berlusconi, who had been in power up until fairly recently. berlusconi finished surprisingly only a half-point behind. the number three person was a comedienne. melissa: yeah. grillo. pep pegrillo. >> and what he said, melissa, said they're essentially all thieves. throw all the bums out. a guy who was technocratic

economist, who had been doing a good job in terms of running the economy, he finished a distant fourth and clearly one of the things you can read, you can read two or three big things into this. the headline in one of the rome newspapers, the winner is ungovernability. the number two thing is, they clearly don't want austerity. melissa: right. >> and number three, you do not see any structural reforms of an economy that really badly needs it. none of those are on the horizon. melissa: so from what you said i'm really liking the comedian with the crazy hair who is saying they're all thieves, throw them out. that is, that is, here he comes. that sound very rational to me. what would happen if this guy, does this guy have any chance, i mean he, what he came in third or something, right? or? >> yes. let me say one thing about the way that the italians system works. the winner, there are two

houses. the winner of the popular vote gets control of the lower house. so that is expected to be the winner of this center-left party. but the upper house, like our senate, there is no majority there. he will have to put together a coalition. nobody knows if he can. if he can not, they will have to have another vote. >> so, it is madness and we love it because the our country is a mess. we want to see another country that is even bigger mess. beyond that why do we care about this? why does it impact the u.s.? >> for two reasons. one is we have a lot of big companies that get a lot of their profits, we think of them as american companies, but they're truly global companies. they get a lot of profits out of europe. and the second thing is, we export a lot. our economy imports a lot and we export a lot. if there is no real engine of growth in the world economy, if it is not coming out of japan, and it's not, and it's not coming out of

europe, and it's not, we have to do it all on our own and you can tell how slow we're growing, melissa. melissa: absolutely. i like italian wine. that is important. professor, thanks so much for coming on. we appreciate it. see you soon. >> my pleasure. melissa: coming up on "money", blame it on the kids. parents say it is too easy to rack up app store charges behind their backs but will a $100 million settlement make a difference? stay right where you are on this one. at the end of the day you could get some money back. it is all about money. ♪

♪ . melissa: all right. so do your kids have an ipad and iphone, ipod? if they do you may be one of the angry parents who know it is all too easy to rack up charges on the itune accounts without your permission. a group of parents sued apple over the purchasing policy because they have been charged, even thousands of dollars on things like virtual currency, and add-ons for free games. it's a nightmare, trust me. now the tech giant is paying parents back 100 million dollars. for more we're joined by

adam lashinsky, author of the book, inside apple. he is also a fox news contributor. i was really excited about when i heard the $100 million. later i heard it was five bucks a family, about what it breaks down. five bucks get you nothing in the apple store. >> well, i wouldn't say it gets you nothing. it can get you five, .99 cent games or apps. 100 million dollar with be theoretical maximum amount apple would pay out in the settlement. i highly, highly, think they will pay out ever close to $100 million. melissa: really? why do you think that? >> this would require everybody who was theoretically wronged in this theoretically very large class action case to go through the process of saying i want my money pack and prove that my kid accidentally hit the button or hit the button without my knowledge. not everyone will do that in the best of circumstance. >> i mean i've actually seen those letters where, you may

be able to take advantage of this class-action lawsuit. then what you have to go through to get the money is almost impossible to do it for five is probably not worth your while. is there any chance, obviously this sort of raises awareness about this thing not everyone nose about where your kid could be playing a free game. it comes along says, but the game is free but if you want to play it and win you need to download the virtual gems in the treasure box. it automatically, password is still in. let's them go ahead and buy whatever it is. how dependent on they are for the stream of revenue versus how worried are they about parents getting mad by turning off the app or getting rid of the ipad? >> apple is barely dependent on this revenue stream. in fact they were lax when the app store first started. it came to attention this was haing and they put an end to it pretty quickly requiring you to enter the password every time. my understanding the class-action suit has to do

with that period of time before apple clamped down on the rules. now, i've probably never bought a virtual good in my life. melissa: right. >> in fact this is a very, very big business. it's a lot of fun for many discerning adults, not just in these app games but also zynga games on facebook for example. people love it. i personally have a very hard time identifying. but who am i to say? the fact it is a big business and it is a legitimate business. unsuspecting kids need to be protected from racking up bills on their parents accounts. melissa: absolutely. they sit there playing the game and to them they don't know what they're doing, they're trying to get whatever it nice they want to keep going. i had my daughter say can i hit this, daddy, to get the next level. i say, no, you can't. melissa: i've been there myself. adam, thanks for coming on. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. melissa: up next, if you're a chinese communist official apparently you get to do whatever the hell you want at the airport, did you know that?

details what sparked this epic meltdown and why security just stood by to watch. you don't want to go away and miss this one. you can't have too much money or too many fits. ♪ .

♪ (train horn) vo: wherever our trains go, the economy comes to life. norfolk southern. one line, infinite possibilities.

♪

melissa: rocking out, i like it. always get points for it if you rock out to the music before we start. time for a little "spare change." it is just the effort you put into it, not the rhythm you bring to the table. first up, are you in the market for a free house? princeton university has a few to give away. they are actually giving away homes for free. you have to move it, literally. the schools making room for the art and transit projects so the houses have to be moved by the end of april. what do you think? >> this is a pretty good deal, actually. depending on the state of the house. i was in a house that was condemned two years after it graduated, so make sure it is in decent condition, so the cost of

renting one of those tractor trailer trucks, up and moving it to a great location is cost effective. melissa: i feel like it is never the same. >> the cool thing about this is the recommended a house dolly service. rolling a flatbed up to the house and shift it on. that could be a good business to go into. melissa: should we go in on one together? where should we move it to? may be right behind the set. >> that would be great. >> what about the bahamas. melissa: that is great. i really hate missing flights, but i don't know, it is a little over the top. the couple was late because they were having a leisurely rate fist and they missed the next flight the airline but for them.

he has been suspended for bad behavior. i feel that we at the airport pretty much every time. >> you miss a flight you want to slam your stuff on the ground. i understand airport rage but in this case, it was totally his fault. not once, but twice. he missed the second flight. and he's a pretty prominent communist official. everybody has a camera video. like a rockstar. melissa: i love it. i can tel can't tell if his wifs embarrassed or love it. >> i don't think she's allowed to deviate from his reaction. melissa: i have two young sons, and that is like the game machine, my brother took the truck so i'm smashing things because if i hit him i will get in trouble. all right,